Removal of a device + infecton

A device is removed secondary to an infection. Is this the same as saying the device caused the infection?

I read this as: An infection was present, so the device was removed - not necessarily that the device itself caused the infection.

An infection can occur around a device without the device causing the infection, such that the provider needs to clarify the causal relationship, right?

Comments

  • I agree with you.  The cause and effect relationship is absent in that documentation and I (personally) would not be comfortable making such an assumption either way.  
  • You are correct- the provider needs to directly link the two. I have seen devices removed due to to the fact there is infection surrounding the device, the thought being the device will harbor the infective agent.
Sign In or Register to comment.